Older adults’ experiences of intergenerational programmes: a scoping review of qualitative research methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social isolation and loneliness among older adults are global health issues. Intergenerational programmes with children have emerged as a highly touted countermeasure. This study explores what qualitative research methods researchers have adopted to capture the experiences of community-dwelling older adults participating in intergenerational (IG) programmes that promote positive social interactions with non-familial children under 13 years. Following PRISMA guidelines, Medline, CINAHL, APA PsychInfo and Scopus databases were searched from inception to the end of the 2022 calendar year. Nine articles were included in the review. An evaluation approach dominated. Research methodologies in the articles included ethnography, case study and community-based participatory action. The importance placed on observation as a data collection method calls for further study of observation protocols with older adults. The review highlights the potential for future research using creative, performative or arts-based design approaches. Caution is needed about potentially insufficient attention being given to dependability in qualitative research about IG programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".